Why Our Website Sucks

First, “suck” is too strong a word. The original goal when we developed our site 3 years ago was to show what we do rather than try to describe what we do with fancy marketing copy. The site certainly does that – we often hear:

“I went to your website and instantly understood what an RIA is and how you guys were different”

 

effectiveui.com 5/12/2009

 

Ironically, we’ve even been asked, by several very large software companies, to license our tile navigation components for their own use. 

 

I’m certainly not trying to defend the user friendliness of site – it certainly suffers from usability issues and it can be a bit challenging to fully navigate all the content we have up there. But I don’t think it is a necessarily a clear example of a Flashtastrophe (as claimed here)  . I think you either love it or hate it. 

 

So, how did a self-proclaimed, user experience agency wind up with a site that has challenges?

 

Wrong Tool For the Job

Our initial objective for our website to show what we do. That meant we had to come up with a flash-based, “RIA” solution. However, HTML is often the better tool to create a marketing website. We preach to our clients “just because you can, does not mean you should” and our site is a direct contradiction to that philosophy. We were stuck between 2 opposing business objectives.

 

Plumber’s Sink Syndrome (aka cobbler’s shoes)

As we’ve grown our company the last 2 years, our website has always been something we’ve wanted to re-address. We’ve continued to hire amazing design talent, telling ourselves that we’d put these great experience designers to work on our own site. However, the demand for our services has been larger than we could have ever hired for, and our own marketing initiatives have had to suffer. Trust me when I tell you that Rebecca (our former CMO and now CEO) and Chris (our director of marketing) have been begging for time from our design talent. Just as a great plumber has no time to fix their own sink, we have had no time to properly focus on our own site

 

 

Too Close

The people at EffectiveUI (as you could imagine) all have very strong opinions on what our site should be. People passionately dislike the current site. In fact – we use our website as an interview question for designers and developers. We ask “so, what do you think of our site?” – If we hear “I love it”, it almost always excludes that person from being a great fit. Once we had an interviewee say “EffectiveUI my ASS!”  – although he didn’t have the skills we were looking for, he certainly had the right hutzpah. These passionate opinions have made it difficult for us to get consensus on what the site should be. The team is all a little too close to our company and what “they” want from the site – it is VERY difficult to take the proper, objective view of the site’s goals when its your own site. I believe this is the reason why most other interactive agencies’ websites suck as well :)

 

 

Outsourcing was not an option

If we did not have the time or the objectivity internally, why didn’t we outsource it? We debated this for quite some time actually. Outsourcing is the logical choice. It allows us to focus on our customers and brings in an objective third party to help us drive consensus across the organization. But, to be blunt, we were worried about the negative PR we would receive if it ever got out that we outsourced our own website. We ultimately decided that we had to figure out a way to do it internally.

 

 

Once we started treating our website re-design as though it were client driven, rather than an internal project, we started to see some great progress. 

 

No excuses – I know that the site needs work, and that we have let it go for far too long. But cut us a little slack, the rest of our portfolio is pretty awesome :)

4 comments
  1. Esk said:

    I disagree with your comment “I believe this is the reason why most other interactive agencies’ websites suck as well :)” – I think Universal Mind (Just on example) has done an excellent job of developing a sleek website in Flex. What would be wrong with outsourcing it? You’re a web application development firm – your core business is not ‘Web Design’. People might talk if you outsourced it – but I believe ‘flastrophe’ is worse than the negative PR that could be if outsourced.

  2. Esk,
    - Good points, and you are right, UM’s site is good. I guess I never really thought of them as an “Interactive Agency” – perhaps I should re-evaluate that. (also, my comment about everybody else’s site was obviously a little tongue and cheek)
    I think I explained my point about outsourcing pretty well above, lets just say that we had a good healthy debate about it internally and netted out that we should do it ourselves.

    I tried to make no excuses or disagree with the negative comments on our site. I simply thought this would be interesting insight into how even the best of us can struggle now and then…

  3. hi, interesting information you got on web sites, but can you make money or on this technology? i’m not tolking rich but supplemental income. Which is better HTML or PHP or Flash? What i mean is easier to build/create? thanks, good post

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: